A triumph for all of us

Our opinion: The country is a better place after two Supreme Court rulings enhance gay marriage rights.

The United States took a giant step forward on Wednesday with another ruling by its highest court that the fundamental rights of its citizens can’t be applied separately.

The court’s rejection of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, a cynically enacted law if ever there was one, allows married gay couples to receive the benefits they never should have been denied. And its ruling upholding a lower court’s finding that a voter-approved ban on gay marriage in California is unconstitutional allows such unions to resume there and make it all the harder for them to be made illegal elsewhere.

That’s America at its best, on a trajectory that ennobles gays as well as straights. It’s reminiscent of a similar legal milestone of six decades ago that put an end to legal segregation in schools under the discredited notion that blacks and whites could have separate but equal accommodations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy succinctly captured the essential unfairness of a law that he said imposed a “stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states.”

“Interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute,” Justice Kennedy wrote for an uneasily narrow 5-4 majority. “It was its essence.”

Such undisputed dignity brings the guarantee of more than 1,100 different federal benefits that married heterosexual couples have long been able to take for granted. They include spousal Social Security benefits and disability, the ability to file joint tax returns and receive a marital deduction and family medical leave.

Among the victors in that regard is 84-year-old Edie Windsor of Manhattan, who was married in Ontario in 2007 and widowed two years later. She sued the federal government that required her to pay $363,000 in estate taxes because it didn’t recognize her marriage to another woman. Wednesday’s ruling in the case that became known as United States vs. Windsor should be an enduring lesson in both the harsh consequences of discrimination and the fruits of demanding equal treatment under the law. That ought to be one sweet refund for Ms. Windsor.

It was to New York’s shame — a stain that was triumphantly removed two years ago — that Ms. Windsor wasn’t able to be married here. We welcome the day when the other states that ban gay marriage, about three dozen in all, or discriminate against transgendered individuals are forced to face up to the reality of justice in 21st-century America.

There are still four Supreme Court justices untroubled that federal law used to treat gay and straight married couples differently. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent is especially hateful. And here’s House Speaker John Boehner, reacting to the court’s decisions by clinging to the hope that states still can limit marriage to heterosexuals.

America is better than that.

“We are a people who declared that we are all created equal,” says President Obama. “The love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

26 Responses

How about instead we have equality for all. No preference for married people at all. Why should there be benefits for a lifestyle choice like being married. Let us start by removing the married category from taxes. Let us also set up a system where single people can transfer their property to there heirs without fear of the death tax.

Why shouldn’t a single person making $70,000 a year pay the same as a married person making the same amount? Why does he single person pay nearly $3,500 more in taxes?

Why does a married person get to add a spouse and as many children as he likes to his insurance? Why not extend that same benefit to single people who have siblings or children.

How about we strive for equality for all? Extend the same benefits married people get to single people.

At least the TU was able to prove one thing. This fight was all about money and had nothing to do with love.

This is a victory for gay people not all people. It benefits our society as a whole how? Of course you disparage anyone who disagrees with you and they apparently are not entitled to their opinion. As usual the TU is on the side of uber liberalism.

bassjig…too bad for you that the majority of Americans are on the “uber-liberal” side. Sour grapes much? I always have to wonder what motivates a person to be so hateful as to disparage two people who love each other getting married? I know they hide behind religion but I am sorry, it has to be more than religion that motivates this disdain for gay people.

Just because someone does not agree with homosexuality, it does not make them a bigot or a homophobe, it’s called religious freedom! I do not hate homosexuals but rather hate the sin. I agree with Charlie’s post, problem solved!

The court battle over DOMA was certainly about money because it’s a quantifiable entity with which you can demonstrate a tangible impact. It would be much more difficult to show the impact of discrimination if love is the centerpiece of the fight.

But don’t delude yourself. Love is very much a factor in the fight for marriage equality.

Charlie – The only people who pay “death taxes” are those with estates that exceed an amount that the average and most populous segment of the population will not reach. As the corporate wealth driven Right continues to move wealth to the top, their most important concern is keeping it there, which is why they have to con you to let them do it. To pass on intact, an ever growing pool of wealth (power) has implications that are now becoming more important, as Koch brothers’ created organizations like ALEC ( see; http://billmoyers.com/segment/united-states-of-alec/ ), manipulate the political process to further consolidate power into a very few well placed hands. “Death Tax” has that certain ring that inspires fear in the minds of those who will never have to face them, but, as a mechanism to correct the institutionalized theft, that has you paying 24% interest rates, (not to mention large penalties and fees if you are already poor) into the pockets of those who have constructed the system that fleeces so many, by taking away ill-gotten wealth and putting it where it can do the most good for the many, as opposed to the legally cheating few.

The so called “Death tax” is absolutely warranted. Your parents money is their income, not yours. When they pass any money they leave you is YOUR INCOME and therefore you should pay taxes on. Maybe not as high as the general tax rate, but fair is fair – It is income and it should be taxed accordingly.

Usually the biggest mouths against the death tax are the most wealthy…go figure.

Be careful what you cheer for. Compassion is good, but it’s not the ultimate standard. Truth is…and truth is clearly crumbling in the public square.

Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman has been the cornerstone of healthy families in diverse cultures from time immemorial. Call it what you want, or attempt to change a definition, but marriage stands unequivocally defined as a union between a man and a woman.

To suggest otherwise denies the emotional, sexual and BIOLOGICAL complementarianism between the distinct genders. This is not a matter of hating, or persecuting, or belittling or denying basic civil rights to anyone. The issue is “what is marriage.”

Many heterosexual couples fail miserably at upholding the dignity of marriage. So it’s not just a matter of critiquing homosexuals. These court decisions do nothing to confer dignity on anyone. In fact, this will open the door to some pretty bizarre lifestyles and confused children. They are the real victims of these decisions.

This has nothing to do with the fact that all are created equal. Those who lump gay marriage and equality together, and especially those who equate a heteronormative worldview with racism, need to pause and recognize the distinctions.

Let’s celebrate the dignity of all persons. But be careful in applauding a knee-jerk accommodation to a loud and emotion-based appeal. A great blow was just dealt to our nation’s foundation and future. Why? Because without a standard, without a plumbline, without a true north, our society will disintegrate into a murky and muddled assortment of self-centered relationships and behaviors based on personal preference.

“The only people who pay “death taxes” are those with estates that exceed an amount that the average and most populous segment of the population will not reach.”

No. Any inheritance is taxed outrageously, which is essentially double-taxing. I’m not sure how much you can received without heavy taxes but I think it’s under $10,000. Most people have more than that when they die-unless the insurance companies and hospitals take it.

twocents…can you explain what “bizarre” lifestyles kids will now be exposed to? My partner of 20 years and I brought up three kids. They did not come home every day to drug induced orgies or whatever else you and your type seem to conjure up in your minds when you hear the word “gay”. They are grown, have completed college or are close to it and are all heterosexual. Just what are you so afraid of? Can you please explain how my ability to marry my partner and have that union recognized and protected by the law effects you one iota? And for your information, one man and one woman has been far from the traditional model of marriage. Try one man and several women or one man owning one woman historically. And where are your facts to back up your assertions that a two parent family comprised of a mother and father produces more stable children. You have none because reputable mental health organizations and their subsequent studies do not support that assertion. So do tell, what is so damn scary to you??

ann – You have a talent for commenting on things for which you have no real knowledge. Sometimes you get things right, but in the explanation of how you came to a conclusion, you lead one through a convoluted and quite often contradictory understanding of how things work. In this case, a little searching on your part, would have uncovered that there are exemptions that apply before so called “death taxes” are levied. In NY State, the exemption is $1 million, and the federal exception is in excess of $5 million. I do not think, that as a group, that there are more than a small percentage of the population that ends up paying such taxes, and even then, those at the bottom of the scale, just above the minimum, pay little, as it is graduated, just like current income tax. The very rich, however, already have ways to minimize what they pay, if they pay anything at all, because they and their paid minions (lawyers they get elected to office) have written the laws to let them get around their responsibility, so that people like Conrad Hilton can pass his wealth intact to someone as deserving as his waste of skin daughter, Paris.

ann, with all due respect you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about. Then again, elsewhere here you defend the State of Texas on its rampage to join such wonderful states as Yemen in its execution rate, so…..

I didn’t say that the homosexual lifestyle was bizarre. My point was that declaring any union outside the standard of one-man-one-woman as valid (i.e calling it “marriage”) opens the door to any number of unions based on preferences, inclinations, urges, the tide of public opinion, etc. Once you’ve lost the standard, it gets pretty difficult to argue against almost anything.

The fundamental question is: what is marriage? If it’s just a social construct, then society can simply go with the flow of popular opinion. However, if it’s an age-old, wonderful mystery involving an indescribable oneness between complementarily distinct genders that provides a unique stabilizing force for a culture and its children, then we’re in big trouble if we do anything to diminish it as the preferred standard.

Again, heterosexuals are doing a fine job of degrading the institution too. AND…I do believe gay couples, in certain instances, do a better job of parenting than some heterosexual couples. That’s not the point. The point is: is there a standard for marriage or is the concept fluid?

I’m not anti-homosexual. I’m against the attempt to redefine the institution of marriage. I found a few studies that concluded children are better off in a household with two biological parents. I also found a few that said it’s stability, not both genders that makes the difference. I think it’s way too early to tell what the results of this “social experiment” will be. But it’s a bad idea to experiment with the next generation.

I don’t know what to make of the “1951″ comment. It doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, society has progressed in certain ways. But society has also REGRESSED in other ways. New knowledge permits us to throw out inadequate conclusions. And new knowledge permits us to reject new ideas that don’t conform with enduring reality. Dates have nothing to do with it. To assume things naturally get better is chronological egotism. It’s just as bad as blindly longing for the good old days. Some things were better in 1951. Some things were worse. The discussion needs to center on what is marriage.

ann – You have a habit of showing up once in a while, and then doing what can only be called a shot-gun blast of comments on any and all topics, that may currently be under consideration. There is no way, even for a highly educated, prolific reader with high intelligence, and a fairly eidetic memory (much to the bane of anyone sitting in the same room with me while “Jeopardy” is on TV), that I would be presumptive enough to try to comment on everything. Sticking to what one knows, or can research, is far better that painting oneself in a foolish light.

twocents – You didn’t have to “say that the homosexual lifestyle was bizarre”, when your first post classified allowing gay marriage as something that” will open the door to some pretty bizarre lifestyles and confused children”. Your bias shown through like a light-house beacon, an attitude that could very comfortably fit in with the other prejudices so prevalent in 1951. The rest of society is quickly moving beyond being comfortable walking around with a permanently clench butt ( well, except for the Jesusland part of America, and they don’t count in the real world).

“Please note that in every state gay marriage has been put to a vote it lost.”

Not true. In November 2012, same sex marriage won the popular vote in THREE states – Maine, Maryland and Washington. You’re not helping your case when you don’t bother to check your facts before spouting the wrong ones.

bassjig…so what? And by the way, it is Imperial, with an “I”. People did not get to vote on the Courts ruling in Blessing that paved the way for interracial marriages. At the time of that ruling only 20% of Americans supported two people of different races being able to legally marry. Should interracial marriages have been put “up to a vote”. And by the way you are wrong about every state, in Maryland same sex marriage was upheld by voter referendum. And one more thing, can I vote on the legality of YOUR marriage?

twocents…I really do not consider my FAMILY a “social experiment”. That comment in and of itself portrays you as anti-gay. You really cannot provide one argument that supports your position save for “I am afraid for the children” and “this is the way it has always been”. Gay and lesbians have been bringing up kids ever since there were gays and lesbians which is for as long as there have been heterosexuals. We do not forgo our sexual organs when we come out. I honestly shudder when I hear people say “I am not anti-homosexual…but…and the list goes on. Saying to an entire community that you and your families are unworthy of legal protections is just plain…well…anti-gay.